The Islamic Discussion Thread ٤: It's Always Sunni In Arabia

[Jolthig]

Much of the claim that Hadith is unreliable results in a misunderstanding of Hadith science, a study that determines the validity of ahadith.

[Frievolk]

I disagree. There is a science on Hadith to determine if hadith is outstanding or fabricated; there is a way to check the chains to see if they go back to the pious companions.

For example, when both Bukhari and Muslim compiled their collections of Hadith in their Sahihs, they made sure each of the narrators in the Hadith they've mentioned were pious and honest people with excellent memories (as tradition passed down orally). They both read the biographies of the companions and narrators that came after.

And no, I disagree with you, Pilarcraft, when Bukhari and Muslim collected their Hadith, the Hadith they've mentioned remained mostly unaltered according to the chains of narrations they have both studied.

Each narrator had to be known to be:

1. Pious
2. Truthful
3. One with an excellent memory

Therefore, we can conclude the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are reliable. Ibn Salah and the introduction of Muslim give further details on how they collected their Hadith.

The problem isn't "the narrators aren't pious" though. The problem is the chain of narration itself.
Here's the problem. While Muhammad was alive, people could literally ask him when they felt the Mus'haf didn't answer their question well. Muhammad often answered, and they'd do what he said (generally on a case-to-case basis).
Then, Muhammad died. While the Rashidun were busy dealing with internal strife (a fuckload of new Prophets, people burning Mus'haf remnants, civil war, etc.) and long-range conquests in Persia, Egypt, Byzans and North Africa, there were still people who had questions. They visited the Sahaba.
When the Sahaba died, they visisted the second generation (i.e. the Indirect) Sahaba. The last of the Sahaba died during the lifetime of the Shia Imam Baqer (i.e. the first few years of the Umavid dynasty). The last of the indirect Sahaba died during the late Umavid dynasty (i.e. just before Abu Muslim's rebellion)

The earliest ahaadith belong to a generation after that. There was no written hadiith at the time, and we all know oral tradition isn't trustworthy when it is literally about the matter of heaven and hell.

It's not "the people writing them were liars" that makes hadiith, by nature, unreliable. It's the fact that they had no direct source, nor could they cite an evidence. The people narrating the ahaadith at its earliest were senile old men, barely remembering what they'd heard their fathers say they'd heard their mentors had said they'd heard the Prophet say.

[Negarakita]

I disagree. There is a science on Hadith to determine if hadith is outstanding or fabricated; there is a way to check the chains to see if they go back to the pious companions.

For example, when both Bukhari and Muslim compiled their collections of Hadith in their Sahihs, they made sure each of the narrators in the Hadith they've mentioned were pious and honest people with excellent memories (as tradition passed down orally). They both read the biographies of the companions and narrators that came after.

And no, I disagree with you, Pilarcraft, when Bukhari and Muslim collected their Hadith, the Hadith they've mentioned remained mostly unaltered according to the chains of narrations they have both studied.

Each narrator had to be known to be:

1. Pious
2. Truthful
3. One with an excellent memory

Therefore, we can conclude the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are reliable. Ibn Salah and the introduction of Muslim give further details on how they collected their Hadith.

The problem isn't "the narrators aren't pious" though. The problem is the chain of narration itself.
Here's the problem. While Muhammad was alive, people could literally ask him when they felt the Mus'haf didn't answer their question well. Muhammad often answered, and they'd do what he said (generally on a case-to-case basis).
Then, Muhammad died. While the Rashidun were busy dealing with internal strife (a fuckload of new Prophets, people burning Mus'haf remnants, civil war, etc.) and long-range conquests in Persia, Egypt, Byzans and North Africa, there were still people who had questions. They visited the Sahaba.
When the Sahaba died, they visisted the second generation (i.e. the Indirect) Sahaba. The last of the Sahaba died during the lifetime of the Shia Imam Baqer (i.e. the first few years of the Umavid dynasty). The last of the indirect Sahaba died during the late Umavid dynasty (i.e. just before Abu Muslim's rebellion)

The earliest ahaadith belong to a generation after that. There was no written hadiith at the time, and we all know oral tradition isn't trustworthy when it is literally about the matter of heaven and hell.

It's not "the people writing them were liars" that makes hadiith, by nature, unreliable. It's the fact that they had no direct source, nor could they cite an evidence. The people narrating the ahaadith at its earliest were senile old men, barely remembering what they'd heard their fathers say they'd heard their mentors had said they'd heard the Prophet say.

At the same time, not all of them would be wrong. If its something that would stick with you, especially something corroborated by multiple sources who didn't even know each other, then its probably not far off.

[Frievolk]

The problem isn't "the narrators aren't pious" though. The problem is the chain of narration itself.
Here's the problem. While Muhammad was alive, people could literally ask him when they felt the Mus'haf didn't answer their question well. Muhammad often answered, and they'd do what he said (generally on a case-to-case basis).
Then, Muhammad died. While the Rashidun were busy dealing with internal strife (a fuckload of new Prophets, people burning Mus'haf remnants, civil war, etc.) and long-range conquests in Persia, Egypt, Byzans and North Africa, there were still people who had questions. They visited the Sahaba.
When the Sahaba died, they visisted the second generation (i.e. the Indirect) Sahaba. The last of the Sahaba died during the lifetime of the Shia Imam Baqer (i.e. the first few years of the Umavid dynasty). The last of the indirect Sahaba died during the late Umavid dynasty (i.e. just before Abu Muslim's rebellion)

The earliest ahaadith belong to a generation after that. There was no written hadiith at the time, and we all know oral tradition isn't trustworthy when it is literally about the matter of heaven and hell.

It's not "the people writing them were liars" that makes hadiith, by nature, unreliable. It's the fact that they had no direct source, nor could they cite an evidence. The people narrating the ahaadith at its earliest were senile old men, barely remembering what they'd heard their fathers say they'd heard their mentors had said they'd heard the Prophet say.

At the same time, not all of them would be wrong. If its something that would stick with you, especially something corroborated by multiple sources who didn't even know each other, then its probably not far off.

That's so far off the mark you didn't even hit the dart board tho.
The problem with Hadiith isn't just the text of the Rewayat. The context of the event in question, the exact wording, the essential interpretation, they all matter, and as much as the text of the event itself does. And even the most Mutawatir of the Ahaadith can, and is, often faked. The narrators may have agreed that "the prophet said that, or something like it, probably, hopefully", but they never agree on the context or what it should be interpreted as, and most of them believe "you probably shouldn't set that as a precedent" (which, the nature of using Rewayat as the centerpiece of The Sunnat is to use it as a precedent)
We choose to accept some of the more likely ahaadith (those that have been repeated by enough narrators that we can say "either 80 people with no relation to each other all hallucinated, or this probably happened at some point", i.e. Mutawatir and Sahih), because the Quran is simply incomplete, vague, and lacks nuance in the finer details of social and personal life, and Islam, by nature, demands its followers to obey and follow something.

[Jolthig]

I disagree. There is a science on Hadith to determine if hadith is outstanding or fabricated; there is a way to check the chains to see if they go back to the pious companions.

For example, when both Bukhari and Muslim compiled their collections of Hadith in their Sahihs, they made sure each of the narrators in the Hadith they've mentioned were pious and honest people with excellent memories (as tradition passed down orally). They both read the biographies of the companions and narrators that came after.

And no, I disagree with you, Pilarcraft, when Bukhari and Muslim collected their Hadith, the Hadith they've mentioned remained mostly unaltered according to the chains of narrations they have both studied.

Each narrator had to be known to be:

1. Pious
2. Truthful
3. One with an excellent memory

Therefore, we can conclude the Hadith in Bukhari and Muslim are reliable. Ibn Salah and the introduction of Muslim give further details on how they collected their Hadith.

The problem isn't "the narrators aren't pious" though. The problem is the chain of narration itself.
Here's the problem. While Muhammad was alive, people could literally ask him when they felt the Mus'haf didn't answer their question well. Muhammad often answered, and they'd do what he said (generally on a case-to-case basis).
Then, Muhammad died. While the Rashidun were busy dealing with internal strife (a fuckload of new Prophets, people burning Mus'haf remnants, civil war, etc.) and long-range conquests in Persia, Egypt, Byzans and North Africa, there were still people who had questions. They visited the Sahaba.
When the Sahaba died, they visisted the second generation (i.e. the Indirect) Sahaba. The last of the Sahaba died during the lifetime of the Shia Imam Baqer (i.e. the first few years of the Umavid dynasty). The last of the indirect Sahaba died during the late Umavid dynasty (i.e. just before Abu Muslim's rebellion)

The earliest ahaadith belong to a generation after that. There was no written hadiith at the time, and we all know oral tradition isn't trustworthy when it is literally about the matter of heaven and hell.

It's not "the people writing them were liars" that makes hadiith, by nature, unreliable. It's the fact that they had no direct source, nor could they cite an evidence. The people narrating the ahaadith at its earliest were senile old men, barely remembering what they'd heard their fathers say they'd heard their mentors had said they'd heard the Prophet say.

Which if that were the case, then it would be considered a da'if hadith or at least, Hasan. They did have direct sources though. And some Hadith were written down (though I failed to mention this in my first comment).

The evidence lies on the individual who is narrating the Hadith, and whether or not it's in agreement with other individuals (whether the previous generations or whoever else is narrating the Hadith).

I'm pretty sure, Pilarcraft that a lot of these old men still had excellent memories. Hadith isn't some kind of telephone game, and the way oral tradition works in Islam is heavily based on scholarly authorities which some of the people you've mentioned of the generation of the hadith were scholars.

The teachers that Bukhari visisted and got hadith from knew several hadith that went up to the early companions, but it was Bukhari who put the pieces of the puzzle together when determining whether or not a chain of narration was valid.

And do remember, Pilarcraft, that there is also the Sunnah, the practice of Muhammad that was passed down through the generations. Each generation remembered the ways of Muhammad through the teachings of the earlier generations. Because the best way to remember something is to practice it. This is what Muhammad taught, as did his companions he taught, and similarly, this was the philosophy of Bukhari.

Of course there were many Muslims who fabricated Hadith or narrated a very weak narration as we both mentioned in pass discussions. (Heks also mentioned it), but it's when the Hadith has some kind of defect and the chain is broken or misplaced is when the Hadith is questionable.

Whereas the Hadith mentioned in Bukhari and Muslim, had consistent chains with barely any defect whatsoever. Even from the men they both got their Hadith from. These narrations must be free from criticism from authorities in narration at Bukharis time and the generations going back to Muhammad.

As a matter in fact, Muslim mentions in his introduction:

As for the first category, we aspired to advance the report which is safer from defects than any others, and is purified due to being related by people of integrity in Ḥadīth, and certitude for what they relate; there are no strong disputes found [compared to the reports of other Thiqāt] regarding their transmissions, and no excessive inconsistencies [in their own reports] - just as is the case regarding a great number of Muhaddithīn and which appears in their narrations.

Thus when we examined reports of this description from the people, we also came across reports in whose chains there fell some of those who are not described with memorization and precision, like those of the previous description before them. Although they fell below what we described [from the first group], they still have the designation of protection [from ill-repute] and truthfulness; and they acquired knowledge, included among them are the likes of Atā’ bin is-Sā’ib, and Yazīd bin Abī Ziyād, and Layth bin Abī Sulaym, from among the carriers of Āthār and the relaters of Akhbār.

So even though they possessed what we described of knowledge, protection and being known as scholars among Ahl ul-Ilm, their contemporaries who we mentioned as precise and sound in transmission were above them in status and rank because this [the first category] is a high rank and sublime characteristic according to Ahl ul-Ilm.

[Negarakita]

At the same time, not all of them would be wrong. If its something that would stick with you, especially something corroborated by multiple sources who didn't even know each other, then its probably not far off.

That's so far off the mark you didn't even hit the dart board tho.
The problem with Hadiith isn't just the text of the Rewayat. The context of the event in question, the exact wording, the essential interpretation, they all matter, and as much as the text of the event itself does. And even the most Mutawatir of the Ahaadith can, and is, often faked. The narrators may have agreed that "the prophet said that, or something like it, probably, hopefully", but they never agree on the context or what it should be interpreted as, and most of them believe "you probably shouldn't set that as a precedent" (which, the nature of using Rewayat as the centerpiece of The Sunnat is to use it as a precedent)
We choose to accept some of the more likely ahaadith (those that have been repeated by enough narrators that we can say "either 80 people with no relation to each other all hallucinated, or this probably happened at some point", i.e. Mutawatir and Sahih), because the Quran is simply incomplete, vague, and lacks nuance in the finer details of social and personal life, and Islam, by nature, demands its followers to obey and follow something.

See this is why you just go with what seems right for you and cross your fingers.

[Frievolk]

That's so far off the mark you didn't even hit the dart board tho.
The problem with Hadiith isn't just the text of the Rewayat. The context of the event in question, the exact wording, the essential interpretation, they all matter, and as much as the text of the event itself does. And even the most Mutawatir of the Ahaadith can, and is, often faked. The narrators may have agreed that "the prophet said that, or something like it, probably, hopefully", but they never agree on the context or what it should be interpreted as, and most of them believe "you probably shouldn't set that as a precedent" (which, the nature of using Rewayat as the centerpiece of The Sunnat is to use it as a precedent)
We choose to accept some of the more likely ahaadith (those that have been repeated by enough narrators that we can say "either 80 people with no relation to each other all hallucinated, or this probably happened at some point", i.e. Mutawatir and Sahih), because the Quran is simply incomplete, vague, and lacks nuance in the finer details of social and personal life, and Islam, by nature, demands its followers to obey and follow something.

See this is why you just go with what seems right for you and cross your fingers.

Yeah. That is what you should be doing, (And I mean this unironically) but that's no way for an organized religion to function, and Islam -by nature- is not a personal religion, even when in minority.

[Jolthig]

See this is why you just go with what seems right for you and cross your fingers.

Yeah. That is what you should be doing, (And I mean this unironically) but that's no way for an organized religion to function, and Islam -by nature- is not a personal religion, even when in minority.

Well to be fair, the best way to look at Hadith, is to judge them by the Sunnah. I agree with you that sometimes the narrators occasionally don't agree with how an event occurred.

Hence, when doing religion, Muslims should look at Hadith through the Sunnah, which in turn, goes back to the Holy Qu'ran.

Sunnah is above hadith. Though like I said, hadiths aren't always unreliable. Especially if it contains the Sunnah.

[Negarakita]

Jolthig, when I'm in Belgium (going there next year for a school exchange) I'll try go into an Ahmadi mosque and talk with some of the dudes there, because there aren't any here and I would like to see what its like there.

[Jolthig]

Jolthig, when I'm in Belgium (going there next year for a school exchange) I'll try go into an Ahmadi mosque and talk with some of the dudes there, because there aren't any here and I would like to see what its like there.

For sure. Where do you live? (Curious)

[Negarakita]

Jolthig, when I'm in Belgium (going there next year for a school exchange) I'll try go into an Ahmadi mosque and talk with some of the dudes there, because there aren't any here and I would like to see what its like there.

For sure. Where do you live? (Curious)

New Zealand. There are like 3 mosques here in Wellington but they're all Sunni and the closest is kinda salafi leaning according to my friend.

[Jolthig]

For sure. Where do you live? (Curious)

New Zealand. There are like 3 mosques here in Wellington but they're all Sunni and the closest is kinda salafi leaning according to my friend.

Ah. Well good luck next test in Belgium bro. May Allah bless you with knowledge from the Ahmadis there. And of course, there's me as a resource too.

[Negarakita]

New Zealand. There are like 3 mosques here in Wellington but they're all Sunni and the closest is kinda salafi leaning according to my friend.

Ah. Well good luck next test in Belgium bro. May Allah bless you with knowledge from the Ahmadis there. And of course, there's me as a resource too.

Yeah. I just wish there was an Ibadhi mosque somewhere.

[Jolthig]

Ah. Well good luck next test in Belgium bro. May Allah bless you with knowledge from the Ahmadis there. And of course, there's me as a resource too.

Yeah. I just wish there was an Ibadhi mosque somewhere.

Ah.

In time there will be more Ahmadi mosques. Inshallah.

My suggestion to you for now is to follow MTA International on YouTube.

And if you want an archive of the sermons of my Khalifa, just scroll back to the video I posted earlier and you'll find the channel. It's on the previous page.

Im going to sign off now. Salaam bros

[Dahyan]

Happy Mawlid al-Nabawi, brothers and sisters!

[Dahyan]

They're true because they're direct quotes. What's your point here?

They're bogus because the earliest of the direct Rawiyyun belong to early Abbasid era, when every single person to ever talk with Muhammad had already passed away (2 generations away from Muhammad and his direct Sahaba, one generation away from his Indirect Sahaba).
Which you would know if you had studied Ilm-ul-rejal

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

[Frievolk]

They're bogus because the earliest of the direct Rawiyyun belong to early Abbasid era, when every single person to ever talk with Muhammad had already passed away (2 generations away from Muhammad and his direct Sahaba, one generation away from his Indirect Sahaba).
Which you would know if you had studied Ilm-ul-rejal

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

You do realize that the earliest Shia tradition of narrating hadiith is about three centuries older than that of the Sunnis, right? If the Sunni Rewayaat are unreliable, the Shia texts are literally fictional.

[Dahyan]

Jolthig, when I'm in Belgium (going there next year for a school exchange) I'll try go into an Ahmadi mosque and talk with some of the dudes there, because there aren't any here and I would like to see what its like there.

I didn't even know we had any Ahmadi mosques over here. Most of the ones we have here are either Sunni (Hanafi or Maliki) or Wahhabi.

[Dahyan]

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

You do realize that the earliest Shia tradition of narrating hadiith is about three centuries older than that of the Sunnis, right? If the Sunni Rewayaat are unreliable, the Shia texts are literally fictional.

I assume you meant to say three centures more recent than the Sunni one, considering the point you're trying to make.

And no, I'm not referring to the ones that are used by the Twelver school. I'm talking about those specific Hadith that are with near certainty (basically an equal amount of certainty as standard historic sources are scrutinized by) traceable to the Ahlulbayt. Incidentally, those sort of Hadith are pretty much the only ones the Zaydi school accepts.

[Frievolk]

You do realize that the earliest Shia tradition of narrating hadiith is about three centuries older than that of the Sunnis, right? If the Sunni Rewayaat are unreliable, the Shia texts are literally fictional.

I assume you meant to say three centures more recent than the Sunni one, considering the point you're trying to make.

And no, I'm not referring to the ones that are used by the Twelver school. I'm talking about those specific Hadith that are with near certainty (basically an equal amount of certainty as standard historic sources are scrutinized by) traceable to the Ahlulbayt. Incidentally, those sort of Hadith are pretty much the only ones the Zaydi school accepts.

(Yeah. My bad. Translating what I have in mind into English can be a bit hard sometimes)

And no, not really. There are only a very very small number of ahaadith that are even accepted to be anything more than a da'if. Almost none of them have an acceptable Sanad (because, you know, the very concept of Imamate is against the essential elective nature of Welayat itself), and the matn is more often than not shaky at best.
Of course, the same can be said about almost any Hadiith from any denomination, so nothing new there.

[Izaakia]

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

You do realize that the earliest Shia tradition of narrating hadiith is about three centuries older than that of the Sunnis, right? If the Sunni Rewayaat are unreliable, the Shia texts are literally fictional.

You mean they’re a load of Shiite , sorry I’ve been waiting ages to use that joke.

[Jolthig]

They're bogus because the earliest of the direct Rawiyyun belong to early Abbasid era, when every single person to ever talk with Muhammad had already passed away (2 generations away from Muhammad and his direct Sahaba, one generation away from his Indirect Sahaba).
Which you would know if you had studied Ilm-ul-rejal

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

I mean, that's literally what Sunni Hadith does for the latter.

Jolthig, when I'm in Belgium (going there next year for a school exchange) I'll try go into an Ahmadi mosque and talk with some of the dudes there, because there aren't any here and I would like to see what its like there.

I didn't even know we had any Ahmadi mosques over here. Most of the ones we have here are either Sunni (Hanafi or Maliki) or Wahhabi.

Yeah. Last summer, the Belgian Jammat just had its Jalsa.

[Dahyan]

I assume you meant to say three centures more recent than the Sunni one, considering the point you're trying to make.

And no, I'm not referring to the ones that are used by the Twelver school. I'm talking about those specific Hadith that are with near certainty (basically an equal amount of certainty as standard historic sources are scrutinized by) traceable to the Ahlulbayt. Incidentally, those sort of Hadith are pretty much the only ones the Zaydi school accepts.

(Yeah. My bad. Translating what I have in mind into English can be a bit hard sometimes)

And no, not really. There are only a very very small number of ahaadith that are even accepted to be anything more than a da'if. Almost none of them have an acceptable Sanad (because, you know, the very concept of Imamate is against the essential elective nature of Welayat itself), and the matn is more often than not shaky at best.
Of course, the same can be said about almost any Hadiith from any denomination, so nothing new there.

I don't even really disagree with your analysis here. Which is why those particular hadith, though small in number, tend to be the only ones accepted by the Zaydi school.

[Dahyan]

That would make sense when talking about the "Sahih" Hadith collections of the Sunni schools. But there are numerous other Hadiths that can be traced back to the Ahlulbayt or Sahaba themselves.

I mean, that's literally what Sunni Hadith does for the latter.

I didn't even know we had any Ahmadi mosques over here. Most of the ones we have here are either Sunni (Hanafi or Maliki) or Wahhabi.

Yeah. Last summer, the Belgian Jammat just had its Jalsa.

I know that the Sunni Hadith compilations indeed try to trace back to the Ahlulbayt and Sahaba, but this doesn't always succeed. Which leads to the issue of Hadith that seemingly contradict or "abrogate" the Qur'anic message.

[Herskerstad]

Then again, what does Islam turn into if we remove the full bodies of the hadiths.

I mean say goodbye to the pillars, five daily prayers, virtually any ruling Muhammad ever did, ect. If we leave all history and take aside from the Quran what is left would look nothing like your average sunni denomination.